UnManagement.Com

Organizations That Don’t Block Informal Networks

Over the Memorial Day weekend, I was a guest on the CFI (Coach for Innovation) Radio Hour with Host Dee McCrorey, a 25-year corporate veteran-turned-innovation coach.

On this show, callers asked a series of questions about UM and the organizational sweet spot. I’ll take a shot at answering some of them here in my blog.

Q: As someone who coined the term “UnManagement” in 1995 at a management conference here in Silicon Valley, can you share with us what UnManagement looks like for organizations today?

A: As you said, UnManagement (UM) refers to a term that I coined while writing my first management book. UnManagement is a new management concept that I feel strongly would benefit all organizations today.

It applies to the informal side of every organization that cannot be managed in the traditional sense because its social dynamics are emergent, and thus, unmanageable.

For instance, W. L. Gore & Associates (the company that developed Gore-Tex™) incorporated the general UnManagement philosophy into their day-to-day activities from day one, although that’s not what they called it.

Gore’s philosophy is very simple but powerful. Its fundamental objective is simply: “To make money and have fun.”

Beyond that basic objective, Gore incorporates four principles which guide its associates but permits very flexible, open working relationships: fairness, freedom, commitment and “waterline” (or the promise to always consult with others in the company before taking any action that might put the firm at risk).

Other companies have at least partially incorporated some of the UM principles but overall, the concept has not caught on in many organizations.

That’s because they tend to persist in using the traditional model of management, which was designed for the Industrial Age but is no longer appropriate for today’s Knowledge Age, where knowledge workers make up at least 1/3 of the workforce.

Knowledge workers in particular have different expectations than traditional workers do and expect to be able to play an active role in managing their work, and not simply follow orders.

I feel that in not being open to new management methods and sticking with old fashioned top- down management, organizations are missing out on productivity and innovation opportunities and instead, are saddled with worker disengagement, apathy, low productivity and less than optimal innovation.

UnManagement provides an opportunity for organizations to leverage the power of informal social networks, which ironically is where most of the innovation and productivity takes place in the first place. In fact, traditional means of managing are a hindrance within these emergent social networks, which are a naturally occurring part of EVERY venture.

Next question!

Where Is the Sweet Spot?

Discussion of the controlled access and shared access contexts in which people work every day brings us to the place I discovered while doing my research for my latest book, The Organizational Sweet Spot: Engaging the Innovative Dynamics of Your Social Networks (Springer, 2009).

It’s a place that I labeled the “shared access domain” in my book.

This is the place where formal and informal communication intersect, and where the most productive work of an organization takes place.

More fittingly, I decided to refer to it as “the organizational sweet spot.” This spot represents the area where the formal and informal systems of an organization have reached “a meeting of the minds” over the fundamental goals, policies and processes of the organization.

What is particularly noteworthy about this agreement is that it is not reached through any sort of formal negotiation. Rather, it’s emergent.

The more people are given a voice and implicit control in the management realm, the more they will understand and respond positively to formal organizational goals and initiatives.

In the process, the organization’s informal networks will begin to function more in the open and start making appropriate connections with other emergent groups.

And under the right conditions, the informal components will begin to overlap more and more with the formal elements of an organization.

This sweet spot or overlap is a very desirable state for any enterprise. It’s a natural outgrowth of day-to-day interactions or “self-organization” by the people representing both the Management and the “un-Management” realms of a given venture.

It’s my impression that most organizations don’t recognize that this spot is crucial to their well-being and productivity.

What I plan to do with my time left on this planet is continue helping organizations find, and ultimately, enlarge their sweet spot—where everyone is fully engaged.

So just what is the Shared Access Context?

It’s about incorporating leadership that’s based on expertise and social attention-holding potential with emphasis on individual commitment and dynamic interconnectedness.

I like to call this type of “catalytic leadership.” Something that is all too rare—but highly valuable.

Maintaining Order and Control

In a shared access context, order and control are maintained through these kinds of expectations and practices:

• Proper direction is attained and maintained through a shared identity and self-reference and not by conformity or “herd mentality.” It’s unity expressed through diversity.
• Everything is open to constant examination, experimentation and improvement.
• Change is part of the everyday process. The organization is intended to operate on the edge of chaos, never in a stable, fixed point but continuously evolving in response to an unpredictable and changing environment.
• Organizational members are considered to be partners responsible and are accountable for both individual and collective activities.

Work Practices

In a shared access context, most activities are based on reciprocal relationships, valued differences, and respected individual identities.

Emphasis is placed on constant examination and experimentation that may lead to more challenging and rewarding networked processes.

A strong belief that organizational strength stems from the synchronized efforts of extraordinary people is evident. Consequently, everyone is expected to continuously attain new competencies that benefit not just the company but also the growth and worth of each individual member.

Every opportunity is taken to strengthen the sense of community through mutually beneficial activities, interactions, and the sharing of sentiments.

And the pursuit of creativity and innovation is enhanced through the persistent encouragement of constructive dissent in an atmosphere of mutual trust.

The type of thinking that is common in complex adaptive systems thinking is pervasive. Interconnectedness of all proposed actions and continuing activities are diligently scrutinized to ensure effective common results.

One of the great attractions and positives of working in a shared access context is that every member is actively engaged in assuring that all activities, resources, and rewards are equitably managed.

Frequently Heard Comments

• Can you think of other options?
• Am I on the right track?
• Let’s take another look at that deadline.
• Thanks for taking the initiative.
• How often should we meet?
• We’re in it together.
• What’s your gut feeling on this?
• How can I help?
• Is this mutually beneficial?
• How does this support our overall activities?
• Please take a real critical look at my proposal.
• How time flies.

Who wouldn’t want to work in this context? It’s the kind of place where I suspect most workers, especially knowledge workers, want to be.

From my perspective, the ecologies and contexts within which organizations operate fall into two general categories:

• Controlled Access System--where access to the resources of a group and its activities are controlled by one or a few select individuals; and
• Shared Access Systems--where the resources of a group and its activities are impartially dealt with by all members of the group.

In this entry, let me share what the controlled access context looks like:

The Controlled Access Context

This context is about maintaining order and control.

Some of the key principles adhered to in a controlled access context are:

• Leadership is based on position power.
• Most activities are expected to be predictable, controlled and operating at optimum efficiency.
• Only a few individuals have the responsibility and authority to maintain control by developing, clarifying, and reinforcing goals, action plans, and policies.
• Everyone is expected to diligently follow prescribed rules and behavioral guidelines, in addition to embracing the solutions presented by management.
• All changes are made incrementally by the direction of upper management, following rigorous formal planning and the establishment of precise implementation guidelines.
• Everyone is asked and expected to be a team player, in addition to being dedicated to formally communicated cultural values.

Work Practices

The work practices in a controlled access environment demonstrate that the organization's goals and objectives are the purview of Management.

People have little autonomy in redesigning work contexts that may be more challenging and rewarding. To keep this type of order:

• Education and training are geared towards making current jobs more efficient and predictable.
• Little value is placed on developing and maintaining a sense of community that emphasizes intimacy, trust and mutual support.
• Few people have line-of-sight relationships with other organizational groups or customers.
• Most people are not expected to understand the socially significant purpose and the overall interconnected operations of the business.
• Individuals and teams are seldom asked for input regarding how organizational activities, resources and rewards should be managed.

Frequently Heard Comments

The kinds of comments heard in controlled access contexts include:

• You must.
• That's not my job.
• You have no choice.
• Have you forgotten the deadline?
• We need to talk.
• It's the bottom line that counts.
• This is for your own good.
• Get off my back.
• I don't care how you feel.
• You had better pay attention to company policy.
• Don't you understand?
• Is it time to go home yet?

In this type of context, workers are bound to be scrambling for the door. Not exactly a motivation-inducing environment.

For more on controlled and shared access contexts, see Unleashing Intellectual Capital (Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000).

Knowledge Workers Can’t Be Managed

Why can’t knowledge workers be managed in the traditional sense?

I suggest that the answer to this question is based on some insights regarding human nature.

In the Industrial Age (and still today, in many instances), people were primarily hired for the use of their hands and feet instead of their minds. Thinking and directing were the job of the bosses.

Organizations were designed and run like machines. As a result, employees were treated as expendable interchangeable parts and costs of production.

Conversely, workers needed various forms of equipment and tools that these organizations possessed in order to do their job and make a living. In other words, they had to have access to “means of production” since, with rare exceptions, they couldn’t afford to acquire their own machines and facilities necessary to attain an income for adequate subsistence.

Today’s knowledge professionals, who constitute more than a third of the United States workforce (and their numbers are constantly increasing), are faced with a completely different yet subtle situation.

What is subtle is that they own their means of production—the gray matter between their ears. Consequently, when they decide to join or leave an organization they carry their means of production with them.

As a result, knowledge workers are an investment and require balanced treatment so they will not walk out the door permanently.

Interestingly, giving them more money and other benefits will not have the desired effect in the long run.That is because knowledge professionals not only desire considerable personal autonomy but also the responsibility and accountability for running at least some part of an organization.

They need to be treated as partners or associates, not as typical Industrial Age employees.

And that, in a nut shell, is the reason why knowledge workers can’t be managed in the traditional sense.

But there’s much more we should understand about knowledge generation and the knowledge worker.

We need to develop organizations that continually nurture the collaborative best from all members and, in turn, reward them equitably and not just from a monetary standpoint.

You can read all about this in Hidden Assets.